Before I got to TCW and Cathinfo, just about the only place I ever encountered the term sede vacantist was in reading Pastor. He uses the term to describe the time period between when a Pope dies and a new one is elected. This type of thing has been know to go on for months or even over a year.

For those who are adherents of the SSPX position, or some #### variation thereof, I am genuinely and sincerely interested in how you think Our Blessed Lord's words, "He who hears you, hears Me...", apply to the post-V2 Church (which you accept as the Catholic Church).

The gist of Our Lord's words is: If you listen to my representatives, you are listening to Me.  Doing such, you will infallibly be on the right path.

How is it possible to say this about Benedict, his post-V2 predecessors, and the entire V2 Church, and its patently non-Catholic religion?  If we followed the Benedict and his V2 religion most faithfully, would we not be on our way to perdition?

I am NOT trying to be a pain in the ass, here.  I am deeply interested in how this truth, uttered by Incarnate Wisdom, can be seen to relate to the V2 Church.  I thank you in advance for your replies.  God speed.

There is not one thing I'm commanded to do as a Catholic which would kill my chances for salvation even with their insanity. I'm not obligated under the pain of sin to be ecuмenical, and JPII has said the opponents of ecuмenism have their place, and there is nothing I have to do by their standards which if I disobey I go to Hell.

Am I obligated to go to the Novus Ordo? Nope
Am I obligated to go to interfaith prayer meetings? Nope
Am I obligated to go to deny the faith by any directive that if I disobey I go to Hell? Nope

If you are a true son of Tradition are you obligated to accept Vatican II in the Light of Tradition? Nope? Yep?

May you simply reject it across the board as a carnival of apostasy and heresy? Nope? Yep?

It's okay for entertainment purposes to be sententiously folksy. But it's no argument.

I have not proven any of your points, Mr Solimanto.

The reason why your thinking on these matters is so dreadfully skewed is that you think it's "all about YOU."

No, YOU don't have to pray to Blessed John XXIII.

Yes, you ARE obligated to avoid involvement of any kind with an institution that mocks God to the extent of proposing such an apocalyptically wicked creature for veneration.

You MIGHT be spared Hell if it is Grave Fear or being a simpleton which keeps you in thrall to the leaders of the Vatican II cult.

You ARE obliged to consider the dignity of the human intellect in THIS world (which is so outraged by the untruths which prop up Dear Holy Father as Antichrist theologizing) and not put everything in the conveniently iffy context of what you imagine I may imagine about the next world.

Concern for Truth, just for the sake of God Who is Truth, should precede a parochial fixation on one's own salvation.

It is inane to pass from a reference to "caution" to the notion of "praying for" the Vatican II church top leadership. It's an abnormal thought process. (Normal among Traditionalists, though.) No, the idea is that you FOLLOW and OBEY and HEED AS YOU HEED CHRIST the Vicar of Christ. Your "praying for" him is beside the point. You may pray for Josef Ratzinger as a heretical Mozart lover who needs conversion all you like.

Opposing the Ordinary Form of the Mass as proposed by the Vicar of Christ does not put your salvation in danger? You may ignore and denounce and mock him will-nilly as long as you piously stipulate that it is the Vicar of Christ whom you are ignoring and denouncing and mocking?

YOUR managing to take a pious pass on involvement in Catholic reality solves nothing. The only thing that matters is that you insist for some ungodly reason on claiming that it is the Vicar of Christ and his visible fellow bishops who are opening the gates of hell and making all hell break loose on earth.

You've heard ANY Conciliar pope or bishop as you hear Christ since you became a Traditional Catholic? I doubt that you have. How on earth has Christ ever had a day's luck with THEIR visibility? What good does it do Him or you or me or any soul on earth? Those Modernists, those Masons, those Liberals, those sons of the Revolution who, according to Archbishop Lefebvre, have been working to dechristianize society, souls, the Church?

But no one is OBLIGED to be dechristianized? That's awful nice to know! Someone should inform the Universal Visible Church at once. It seems not to have grasped that point.

I think we all know what the real issue is here. The mechanics of the hope of a rescue. The so-called Solution. I grant that there is no hope on earth for a Catholic Restoration unless there is a living link to the Catholic Past. I grant that the stricter sedevacantists are destroyers of that hope.

The answer is simple. There is no hope for an earthly restoration. Our only hope is in heaven now. Things are shot all to hell in this world. The task of believers  is to accept this reality with good grace and head held high. Otherwise your life will be a degrading and painful lurch from one idiotic mirage or obsession to the next.

Such as, oh, a REAL bishop of the Visible Church who despite his love of the Novus Ordo spoke SO beautifully of Our Lady that he made a glorious new Pope Pius seem almost tangible... except that then he lauded The Theology of the Body in a way that made even Uncle Max, a Freethinker, blush in scandalized shame...

Orthodox theologians, you say? They have always allowed for an apparent pope who is no pope at all, having fallen from office under his own heretical steam, with no need of declaration.

It is not "cautious" to claim that a man whom you yourself dismiss as a false teacher is the Supreme Teacher of the Faithful.

It is reckless.

It is really, really dumb.

What good does the Visibility of the Conciliar church do Christ or the world or souls?

About as much good as the visibility of the Austrian cardinal archbishop's filthy pictures of Christ, which he had Catholic children view in the name of Vatican II-style Engagement with Modern Culture.

The visibility of the Vatican II cult is a diabolical snare. It is blasphemous to make God its ultimate guarantor, as mainline Traditionalists do in their desperate lunacy.

SSPX adherents should be content to reason that the SSPX is visibility enough for the True Church, and stop proposing blasphemies supportive of the Conciliar church because of things about the marks of the Church that they read in old books and misunderstood.

Actually Fr Radecki's #should be revised down by 5 names because he lists the Fr faction during GWS. Acc to von Pastor, since the GWS was purely political and didn't involve heresies or homos, one is free to call either Pope of the  a true one.

A while back there was someone who referred on 2 occaisions to Alex VI as a very bad Pope. As I have been able to rehabilitate the char of the Pope to some extent--there were no Vatican orgies and Savanarola was a heretic-- it would be interesting to hear v2 ers comment on the orgies that are indeed going on there now.

The only other crisis in the history of Holy Church that might be compared in a small way to what is happening now is the Templar scandal and the anti-pope boniface who was protecting them.

John XXIII certainly revealed himself as a false prophet and an enemy of Christ and the Gospel from the very start of Vatican II.

He worked hard to lead the world into disastrous errors, into the Great Apostasy.

The theology of the past simply does not ask the right questions about such a creature and the significance of his incomparably wicked deeds given his apparently kosher occupation of the See of Peter. Bellarmine and Suarez and that bunch simply could not conceive of the Vatican II situation and of the way in which Modernists operate: Pius X, of course, had a better idea of it, but even he failed to make it clear how the Modernists were heretics at all, even though they clearly were not Christian believers at all.

"Maybe we should not be so certain that Jesus of Nazareth is anything to us but some ancient Jєω who apparently got crucified for reasons we'll never know."

Where precisely would Aquinas find any heresy in such a statement? The "maybe" itself ends the heresy hunt right off the bat. It is evidence of a lack of pertinacity, better in any ecclesiastical court than a comely lass's lifting her skirt while on the stand is in any secular court. Of course, we all know that it is REALLY evidence of diabolical perversity. But God and simple believers don't write the heresy rules. Clerics who are given to covering for their clerical homeboys write the heresy rules and enforce them- or don't.

Where exactly is the heresy in the statement of Cardinal Hume that alhough he personally believed in the Resurrection, modern Christianity could carry quite nicely should it develop that Jesus rotted in His tomb after all?

The book has yet to be written in which the atrocities that Roncalli uttered against the holy Way of Christ for the last few decades of his life are analyzed and condemned for what they truly are:  exhortations ordered to a false gospel and a general No to Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Most theologizing on these matters is inane and foolishly pedantic on all sides. Old-timers such as Bellarmine and Suarez conceived of theological warfare in the way that generals and kings conceived of sociopolitical warfare: everyone stand in a nice straight line and politely blows some chaps on the other side to smithereens at an agreed-upon time in an agreed-upon place. This is why in the end most Traditional Catholics come down hard against orthodoxy and in favor of heresy and error and vice.

"Well, pertinacity has not been proven!" they say in defense of the most outrageous and blasphemous purveyors of falsehood. "And the truth supposedly denied would not even be of divine and Catholic faith!"

The style now among Traditionalist mainliners is to attack sedevacantists and make common cause with people who not so long ago they rejected as "Novus Ordo Conciliarist non-Catholics."

John XXIII? He's off MY list of popes. I would have to see it written in some papal encyclical or Conciliar decree that being a false prophet and a destroyer of a billion lives in Christ is compatible with true papacy, whereas being a bona fide, card-carrying, horn-tootin' heretic, formal and everything, not just material, is not so compatible.